Assetto Corsa Competizione: The 5 Point Tyre Model Blog

Paul Jeffrey

Premium
ACC c.jpg

In another very interesting post from Kunos Simulazioni, physics developer @Aristotelis talks about the upcoming new 5 point tyre model for the simulation.


Developed by the makers of the popular Assetto Corsa racing simulation, and benefitting from the official licence to represent the 2018 and 2019 seasons of the Blancpain GT Series, Assetto Corsa Competizione continues to be expanded and improved upon following V1 release earlier in the year - the next development set to be a new 5-point tyre model...

Five point tyre model I hear you say... pray tell, what might this be? Frankly I've no idea, so I'll leave it to Aris to explain...

In modern computing, collision detection is still one of the most resource consuming operations a physics engine has to do. It needs to be very fast, very accurate and low resource demanding, but you can only choose two of them at once… Add to the equation that in AC and ACC the cars drive on an invisible physics 3D mesh with millions of polygons, derived from the laser scan of the real circuit, and it’s clear that a compromise has to be made. On top of that, AC and ACC uses the same player physics for the AI, requiring even more resources.

The collision detection of a simulation has to be very fast and very accurate, otherwise strange things might happen to the simulation. So in order to make it less resource demanding the tyre model of AC and ACC uses one single point to determine contact of the tyre with the terrain, being this last one a flat asphalt, bumps on the asphalt, various types of curbs, grass and so on.
This solution is a quite good compromise in order to have decent performance and high simulation accuracy. It permitted us to push hard and evolve the tyre model, adding more and more features on it. As a matter of fact the ACC tyre model is one of the most evolved ones, completely dynamic with a wide range of causes that affect and influence the grip and response of the tyre. Various heating levels, different tyre wear features, various influences in tyre rigidity and damping, completely dynamic slip ratio and angles, dynamic rolling resistance in different situations, full water draining simulation etc. etc. the list is very long, very complex, innovative and often involving completely original and breakthrough solutions, derived from meticulous studying and hard work of Stefano Casillo that you won’t find in any scientific paper, as he had to build new equations by himself.

Unfortunately, while still acceptable in AC, the more advanced physics engine of ACC put in evidence the limitations of the above solution. Our tyre model started to have issues and downright buggy behaviour under certain conditions over curbs. The use of laser scan circuits, gives no doubts on specific features of the circuits. If a curb is high, has a specific angle, has dangerous angled steps in it or any other strange feature, then the laser scan will show it in millimetric accuracy. On the other hand, our company motto is that we take no shortcuts in things we are certain. If a curb is made in a specific way, that’s how that curb is going to be implemented in the sim. If that means that our tyre model is going to suffer on it, then so be it, we will have to work hard to make it better and for sure we ain’t going to make the curb smoother just to “workaround” the issue. So let’s analyse what exactly happened with our tyre model in such conditions.

First of all, let’s see how the tyre model would deal with a high but smooth curb, like the many of the curbs at the circuit of Spa Francorchamps. As you can see in the screenshot a curb like this, although it has a smooth surface, it has a quite steep angle, often exceeding 30°.

ACC a.jpg

The single contact point is approaching the curb but still stays in the completely horizontal surface of the asphalt. Even if graphically the tyre starts to be “on the curb”, the actual point still remains down on the asphalt. This also tricks the mind of the driver, because in real life, if the edge of the tyre touches the curb surface, the driver will hear and feel the tyre touching the edge and take appropriate action or at least he will know he is gradually going over the curb. In ACC this won’t happen. As an example, many people see in real life the left inner curb of Eau Rouge being dirty from tyres and think real drivers abuse the curb. They try to do so in ACC and get an instant spin. In reality, you just need to touch the curb a bit and you can feel it and make it dirty. In ACC the driver will probably think he still has space and on the next lap he will go even close. This creates also a false impression to the driver of where the limits of the car are and the driver might caught himself trying to place his wheels in places he shouldn’t do. At some point the single point will go over the curb. Instantly it will understand a 30° surface inclination. This is an extremely big change on the contact point and a huge spike in load, vector, rolling resistance and so on, resulting also in big spikes in forces and grip. Consider the following situation:

You are on the limit of grip in a turn. The outside wheels are right on the edge. You climb with your front internal tyre on a high curb. This means that you raise the front inner end of the car and obviously you load the rear tyre with even more load. The tyre, already at the limit of its adhesion, cannot afford any more load so it starts to slide. In AC/ACC the front inner tyre will also take a big spike in load and rolling resistance, so it actually brakes for a moment and throws to the suspension more forces than it should. Those forces end up to the rear suspension and tyre in big spikes and the tyre loses even more grip. Usually in very stiff racecars, the inner rear tyre might even go airborne losing all grip and forcing the differential (if locked) to move even more torque to the outside rear tyre.

ACC b.jpg

If during the whole process, you also remain on the accelerator, you will have a situation where the rear outside tyre pushes forward with less lateral grip while the front inner tyre pushes backwards. Practically you car is transformed to a tank with treads that move in different speeds.

ACC c.jpg

This is why in AC/ACC if you modulate your accelerator the issue is practically non existent but also why if you stay on the accelerator the behaviour is exaggerated.

Another example are stepped curbs. As you can see in the following screenshot of a Paul Ricard curb, the steps of the curb are not equal from side to side, but gradually become more and more deeper (or in other curbs they might go upwards).

ACC d.jpg

The tyres of a GT3 car are quite wide, around 30cm wide. This means that often the tyre can be over the curb with the outside part going over the more shallow part of the step, and the inside part going over the completely flat part of the curb, leaving only the center of the tyre hanging through the most deep part of the stepped curb. The result in real life is that while you will feel vibrations from the curb, they will not be as important as the most profound part of the curb. Again, unfortunately in AC/ACC the single contact point at the center of the tyre, will get the worse possible condition of the stepped curb, something that in reality would never occur. So again in AC/ACC the behaviour is much more harsh and critical than in real life.

Finally, some kerbs have an almost vertical step at their outside edge.

ACC e.jpg

Often the driver will ride and go over the edge of said kerb and then slowly return to the main road going almost parallel with the curb. ACC in particular is extremely critical in such situations. Adding full 3D flex of the contact point (only vertical in AC), created a critical condition in the above scenario. The single contact point would go to the vertical parallel side step and being as high and vertical, instead of climbing over it, it would start to flex outwards, practically getting trapped in a rail. The driver would see that the car wouldn’t follow his commands to reenter and at some point he would move some more the steering wheel, creating more lateral force than actually needed. The front tyre contact point would climb over the step and then obviously would have excessive slipangle that would steer the front end very fast. At the same time, the rear tyre would be in the same condition and still trapped, so it won’t be able to follow the rotation of the car and will continue straight ahead in the rail, practically inducing the car into a very fast spin.

ACC f.jpg

This is one of the most well known and widely reported “curb of death” situations in ACC and in great need of a solution.

Paradoxically, sometimes trying to make the tyre model even more accurate, detailed and realistic to drive, you get into extreme situations that are so critical and have so bad side results that can practically destroy all the good intentions and effort to offer an even better simulation.
Fernando has been hard at work on our tyre model. With the help of Stefano so that he can understand the underlying code and make sure we get no big impact in performance. Some extra code performance optimisation from Fabio was more than welcome too. So from version 1.0.7, ACC now features a 5 point contact model! We implement 2 contact points at the edge of the front of the tyre footprint, 1 in the middle of the footprint and 2 more contact points at the edge of the rear of the footprint. Each single point moves and flexes independently reacting on forces and surface contact, but also, predictably forces to move the other points together, averaging the resulting forces and vectors, giving a much better representation of what an actual tyre would do.
Examining the above 3 examples again, we can observe massive improvements of how the new tyre model is reacting.

On the first smooth high curb situation, the advantages are multiple. First of all, when the edge of the tyre touches the curb it activates the sound and properly moves the FFB steering wheel, thus communicating at the driver the correct width and position of the tyre. Furthermore the contact points at the edge of the tyre, get the spike of the steep angle of the curb, but their forces are averaged to the rest of the contact points that are still on a flat surface. The tyre actually “climbs” over the curb, instead of instantly finding itself on top of it. There are no more load and angle spikes except the realistic load changes.

ACC g.jpg

So obviously if you are too aggressive the rear tyre will lose grip and can still provoke a spin, but the result is no more exaggerated so there are no more excuses for bad driving ;)

On the second example, the contact points now include the whole width of the tyre and if that’s the case successfully keeping the middle of the tyre in the air while also being spread longitudinally in the footprint length. There is always a contact point touching the surface at the front or the rear of the footprint even if the tyre is rolling on the steps. On top of that, the extra points are controlling for load spikes and avoid situations of excessive rolling resistance or vectors that point backwards to the car motion.

ACC h.jpg

This greatly improves acceleration over stepped curbs, as in example at the exit of turns, which in the past, drivers would avoid in order to not harm their acceleration.

Finally, on the most important third example, as clearly explained before, the multiple points now permit the tyre to “climb” over obstacles. So when the edge of the tyre hits the vertical step of the edge of the curb, those contact points start to flex and go parallel “entering the rail”, but the rest of the contact points, still push through the direction and push also the edge points to climb the edge. The driver doesn’t have to do anything with the steering wheel, and the tyre simply goes over the edge of the curb without any dramatic situations.

As an extra bonus, we have also added a new dynamic feature to the tyre flex behaviour. As you know the footprint of our tyre model now flexes in three dimensions. Going even further in tyre simulation, the lateral flex provokes the tyre to lower its profile. This means that the more the tyre flexes laterally the more the ride height lowers. Obviously the change in ride height is minimal, but in a car with proper simulated aerodynamics we know that even one millimetre is important to the handling and balance and so this new tyre model feature plays an important role to the car’s handling. You might notice a bit less understeer on power exit with some rear and mid engined cars, since the lateral flex of the tyre will bring the nose very slightly lower. Gives a bit more control to the front end of the car.

The new tyre model feels even more accurate to drive, permitting placing the car with more precision and absorbing bumps and undulations better with more predictability. All of this is now possible without any hits in terms of performance, which is practically a miracle and win win situation for all of us. As I’m writing this article, we are working very hard on balancing the various values and testing performances and handling, so that laptimes will remain more or less equal and general balance of the cars and your setups won’t change, except maybe for better precision, stability and predictability of the tyres both on and off the curbs.

One more thing…
In our never-ending research for more realism, we knew that we had to improve our Traction Control systems. With the strict rules of the Blancpain series and the BoP in place, there’s not much performance to be found in terms of aerodynamics, chassis, engine and suspension. But the electronics, although regulated, are still a big open field and automakers spend a big amount of their budget to improve such systems.
In street cars, the Traction control engages on the aperture of the accelerator (drive by wire), on the engine ignition timing, on the engine ignition cut and on the brakes. With a combination of all of those controls, the engage of the TC can be smooth and highly efficient.
In GT3 race cars, the control of the throttle and the brakes activation is prohibited by the rules. The TC can “only” modify the ignition timing which lowers up to a point the engine power delivery and if this is not enough, then it will start to totally cut the ignition at a high frequency, resulting in the characteristic engine rattling and vibration.
Been able to lower the ignition timing before cutting totally the ignition, is very important because it permits a more gradual power delivery and a more accurate control at the initiation of a sliding, giving the driver the possibility to modulate throttle application or work around the slide with steering inputs.
To better control the TC engagement, the ECU not only tries to estimate the sliding and slipping of the tyres, but now also uses gyroscopes that measure the yaw rotation of the car, sensors on the steering wheel, and many other parameters so that it can accurately calculate the acceleration of the yaw rotation of the car and understand and predict if it is controllable by driver or if it has to intervene to slower such rotation and give the driver the time to react.
All of the above is now simulated in ACC, delivering a more advanced TC intervention that not only can make you faster and safer but also, incredibly enough, make the car handling more enjoyable even over the limit! Honestly I never thought I would say this for a electronic system…

All of the above, was not a small feat by any means. It took hard problem solving, analysis, non stop testing and balancing. We are very proud of the results as we think they push the simulation realism even further and we are confident that all of you will enjoy ACC even more and appreciate the efforts to not deliver you just another racing game, but really push the boundaries of simulation. As with such complex systems, we hope everything will work flawlessly but if you find any issues, please report everything to our support forums and we will do our best to resolve them.

Original post HERE.

Assetto Corsa Competizione is available now on PC.

For more from the world of ACC, why not head over to our Assetto Corsa Competizione sub forum and get yourself into the thick of the action? We have a great and knowledgeable community, plus some pretty epic League and Club Racing events, if I do say so myself. Go on, treat yourself!



Like what we do at RaceDepartment? Follow us on Social Media!


 
 
Last edited by a moderator:
so the above "the bigger the better" is only valid in the example of the same engine running.

Not really. At some point, the results wouldn't change (significantly enough) anymore adding frequency. So once the steps are small enough (whatever that is), it's fine, and doubling the frequency wouldn't add anything useful. So if any engine is "fine" at a given frequency, increasing it will only take more CPU but won't change the behaviour / simulation results.

Up to a point where the intervals are so tiny that secondary effects like time measurement and floating point precision become a problem - then the higher frequency actually has negative gains, but I'll not stop being *that* german guy now :D
 
I'll answer these two questions by @ermo and then stop.. let's not turn the thread into a Q&A :p

As already explained way back in our forum, the situation on the AC front is pretty complicated right now. An update from us will most likely break all the various "aggressive mods" that have been created in these years.
This will create an uproar of complaints and conspiracy theories that I am happy to avoid by simply not doing it.. I've been around this community long enough to know how it operates and functions... I still remember us closing the modding section on our forum because it was taking too much time to check the actual legitimacy of the content presented... and then see what if felt like an unstoppable flow of conspiracy theories threads appearing there, here, on reddit and everywhere else. Been there, done that.. not going to do it again.
Actions have consequences, it's true for us but it's also true for the community.

Having said that, the NUMBER ONE reason why this is not happening is because we're all focused on ACC and all hands are at work to make it the best product we can... the point in the paragraph above is 100% personal, we never even sat down to consider back porting physics to AC.. I personally back ported a couple of stuff for fun over weekends... but with no real plan for release. Back porting other things would mean to involve developers that were not even in Kunos during the AC days.. completely unfamiliar with AC's codebase and, because it won't happen during own times on weekends it'll have to be a coordinated company decision, not just one guy hacking by himself.

Strongly disagree, there would be zero negative feedback from community. Unless that new contact patch would require all AC kunos cars tyres to be reworked than that makes sense. We all know how Aris almost "died" according to you having to convert from tyre model V7 to V10.

Not gonna lie I am bit jealous that ACC will have finally proper kerb behavior, I sure wish AC1 at some point down the line gets it.

If you you guys have seen what Ilja/Peter/McLaren etc etc have done to AC its now looks like the most modern/complete racing game out there. Runs amazing on any system. And has the best modding community for any racing game out right now.

Anyways I wish you guys luck with ACC.

Hopefully this new update makes ACC the best GT3 simulator out on market.
 
I'll answer these two questions by @ermo and then stop.. let's not turn the thread into a Q&A :p

As already explained way back in our forum, the situation on the AC front is pretty complicated right now. An update from us will most likely break all the various "aggressive mods" that have been created in these years.
This will create an uproar of complaints and conspiracy theories that I am happy to avoid by simply not doing it.. I've been around this community long enough to know how it operates and functions... I still remember us closing the modding section on our forum because it was taking too much time to check the actual legitimacy of the content presented... and then see what if felt like an unstoppable flow of conspiracy theories threads appearing there, here, on reddit and everywhere else. Been there, done that.. not going to do it again.
Actions have consequences, it's true for us but it's also true for the community.

Having said that, the NUMBER ONE reason why this is not happening is because we're all focused on ACC and all hands are at work to make it the best product we can... the point in the paragraph above is 100% personal, we never even sat down to consider back porting physics to AC.. I personally back ported a couple of stuff for fun over weekends... but with no real plan for release. Back porting other things would mean to involve developers that were not even in Kunos during the AC days.. completely unfamiliar with AC's codebase and, because it won't happen during own times on weekends it'll have to be a coordinated company decision, not just one guy hacking by himself.

As for the frequency.. it's a balance between accuracy (the higher the frequency the more accurate the numerical simulation is) and performance (more cycles = more CPU needed). Of course this should never be used as a meter for actual overall simulation accuracy among different engines... frequency is just a number, what it really matters is what's done in those 333 updates.. so the above "the bigger the better" is only valid in the example of the same engine running.
It's also interesting that, when dealing with 32bit floating point based engines, going too high on the frequency might actually start to create problems because of the 32bit resolution of the numbers... in ACC this wouldn't be a problem (on PC) because we're using 64bit double precision for the physics.. but still and interesting fact and a good way to plug one more difference between ACC and AC... :p
Thank you mister for letting us know ;)
Just curious, did you ever considered to offer a part time job to Peter Boese or X4fab?
 
Some steam reviews have a whole list of specific complaints, I think at least half the people had the same experience as me, many just react differently and move on, instead of complaining.

Not all of the "issues" mentioned in reviews (generally, not specifically ACC) are because of problems with the game/software. Years of helping to beta-test and troubleshoot software has shown me that most issues can be traced back to the user's system. In most cases it would be more accurate to say "on my system I get these problems" rather than "this game has these problems which the devs need to fix". I've lost count of the number of times I've subsequently heard people say that they finally traced a problem to a corrupt driver, an over-enthusiastic antivirus or some background task stealing clock cycles. It seems to be becoming the norm to blame someone else for problems you're having rather than to make sure you can't fix them yourself first. Basic problems with the code tend to affect everyone which is why problems that only affect the minority are so difficult (and, sometimes impossible) to resolve. As difficult as it may be to accept, many of the problems mentioned in the Steam reviews are not necessarily being experienced by the majority of users. Many others are just subjective opinions (and not at all helpful) like "the FFB is rubbish" or "the graphics are rubbish".

I challenge anyone to give me the name of a game which didn't have a single bug or missing feature when it was released. No matter how well you test software, the mind boggling number of possible hardware and software combinations on a PC makes it virtually impossible to make things run well on every system. Personally, I'm very happy with ACC and the progress that's being made with it.
 
The lateral 5 point physics will probably be a nice add on to ACC. I have no doubt.
What about the need to add points in front and behind the central points? That would smooth the elevation of a tire... I can understand that this is less urgent as I don't think lack of such feature leads to big strange behaviour. But it may well increase realism in an important manner as well. A tire riding over a curb with a ripple profile would much better absorb the ripple and therefore introduce less unstable effects being transmitted to the car...
 
Last edited:
  • Deleted member 113561

that most issues can be traced back to the user's system.
I would say that the % of those bugs have reduced a lot in the past few years, since more and more games are published in an unfinished & buggy state. See PC2, BFV, AC, ACC, etc.

many of the problems mentioned in the Steam reviews are not necessarily being experienced by the majority of users.
Most are though. This is very clear when you read through the problems, spin up your copy of ACC and check them out, then you realize that most of the issues are not performance / FFB related, but design and bugs. Though performance and stability are also not very good and indeed many promised features are missing (ie. RTX).

FFB & physics related feedback aren't always subjective. Ie. If your wheel is often oscillating with your wheels preset, then this is a problem by the software. Ie. if the physics go berserk (ie. PC2 90° wheel suspension problem), then you know that this is an issue. But also unrealistic behavior can fall under that, if you understand the matter well enough.

It seems to be becoming the norm to blame someone else for problems you're having rather than to make sure you can't fix them yourself first.
This has become the norm for society, see ie. feminism :(
 
I said it before and I'll say it again, it's so nice that Kunos keeps working on the core physics engine. It seems like Kunos and iRacing are the only ones who do so while the rest just keep adding new cars with hardly any work, if any at all, on the core physics engine.

I think that is what true hardcore racing simulation developers should be doing: working on the inner "nuts and bolts" of our "hardcore" sims rather than just sitting around as if they have some god-given perfect driving model while just pumping out new car, track, and graphics updates.
 
neuer31
This not the place for a far reaching discussion on the general state of modern video games.
Why not start a thread about that, because there's certainly a discussion to be had.
You've given your views several times in the thread everyone is very clear on what they are so that's enough.
Let's get back on topic.
 
neuer31
This not the place for a far reaching discussion on the general state of modern video games.

That is because you won't have a discussion about it
I asked for donkeys could you please do a piece with all developers where they feel sims will be in 10 years then make it open forum just to hear ideas for a change

For instance I would ask them why do we need engines all pulling in different directions
If it is okay for 2 titles to use one engine why not all
What would be the advantages ....or not
 
That is because you won't have a discussion about it
I asked for donkeys could you please do a piece with all developers where they feel sims will be in 10 years then make it open forum just to hear ideas for a change

For instance I would ask them why do we need engines all pulling in different directions
If it is okay for 2 titles to use one engine why not all
What would be the advantages ....or not
You've to quote @Kenny Paton correctly in this case ;)
neuer31
Why not start a thread about that, because there's certainly a discussion to be had.
You've given your views several times in the thread everyone is very clear on what they are so that's enough.
Let's get back on topic.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top